Talk:The Dark Knight Rises/Archive 5

Description of the reception
The beginning of reception states "While The Dark Knight Rises received early overwhelmingly positive reviews from American critics,[183][184][185] the international reception was mixed.[186]"

] the international reception was more tempered overall with the film receiving mixed reviews around the world.

The source (186) listed is not sufficient. The article has this sentence "Christopher Nolan has arguably created the greatest superhero trilogy of all time, the points of debate in The Dark Knight Rises notwithstanding. Rises, riding a massive tide of hype, opened to mixed reviews around the world." but the author of the article has no sources to back it up. And Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic show no signs of "mixed" reception. Maybe the international response was mixed but I have seen no evidence of it. Perhaps a better source can be found, maybe a aggregate of foreign reviews such as Rotten Tomatoes? Just wanted to let you guys know so the article can be as accurate as possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booflax (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 May 2016‎
 * Why is The Hindu not sufficient? It qualifies as a reliable source so in that sense it is sufficient. I don't see what makes The Hindu any less sufficient than yahoo or NME. Maybe you are equating non-American sources with inferior analyis? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic only speak for the reviews they have aggregated which invariably come for the US and UK so are not really representative of the global reception. Do they tells us what India thinks? What China thinks? What the Russians think? Our objective here is to present a balanced overview of what critics think of the film and we should tackle that question in a global context. If there are other appraisals of what international critics thought then by all means add them and source them. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this portion needs to be removed. Linking to ONE website asserting that international reviews were mixed is absolutely ignorant, especially when international aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc. paint an entirely different portrait. Someone above said it's no more or less noteworthy than if NME said the same thing; yeah, sure, but if NME said reception to the film was mixed without offering evidence as such, I'd be just as inclined to say they were completely fabricating "facts." The article is fine to link to but it should NOT be considered definitive proof that international reception to the film was mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.64.182.72 (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, providing "proof" is not a WP:RS requirement. Secondly, Rotten Tomaties and Metacritic do not provide any "proof", they just have a transparent methodology: all they do is determine—in their opinion—whether a review is good or not. Rotten Tomatoes is still only providing an opinion, which is no different to what The Hindu is doing. Thirdly, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sample British and American reviews. They do not sample Indian reviews, Chinese reviews, European reviews etc. In fact they draw their reviews from countries representing less than 10% of the world's population. The population of India alone is twice that of the English speaking world, so if we have sources that discuss the reception beyond the English speaking countries then it is proper to take those views into account. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I too object to the 'Hindu' addition on WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE grounds. The top review aggregators completely and utterly contradict its claim of "mixed reviews", and consensus here is in support of its removal, which I have handled. Locked from inside (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * FRINGE does not apply here (The Hindu is clearly is a respected news outlet with legitimate mainstream opinions), and you have provided no evidence that it is WP:UNDUE. To make case that The Hindu's opinion is "undue" you need to provide evidence that the international opinion of the film is at odds with what The Hindu states. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic only speak for the British and American reception i.e. less than 10% of the world's population. There is nothing in the article that contradicts the opinion of The Hindu, and you present no evidence here either. There is absolutely no reason why only opinion representing less than 10% of the world's population should be represented, and opinion representing the ohther 90% should be excluded. If the opinion expressed by The Hindu is indeed undue then please provide sources which discuss the international reception of the film, and do not just focus on the reception in the English-speaking parts of the world. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not The Hindu, but one writer in Sudhish Kamath, who claims that reviews were mixed without providing any evidence to back it up. He doesn't point to any international reviews to bolster his point, rendering it rather weightless. His comment is especially suspect when RT and MC track reviews that are overwhelmingly positive. If you were to dig up an Asian RT counterpart indicating a 50% critic rating, then that would be a different story. Locked from inside (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to provide "evidence" of their claims. The two policies that are relavant here are WP:RS and WP:DUE. The Hindu is clearly RS, and to challenge its opinion as "undue" you have to provide sources making counter-claims that challenge its opinion. The conclusions of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic do not contradict The Hindu, because they do not appraise the international reception; they appraise British and American reviews. If you want to challenge The Hindu's claim then please provide sources that specifically discuss the international reception, and not just the British and American reception. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the very first page of RT reviews for this film, I've located appraisals from India, Thailand and Australia. Consensus is against your material. Locked from inside (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Examples of individual reviews are not "appraisals" of the overall reception. Manual_of_Style/Film states that the "overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources" and you have not provided any sources that specifically address the international reception. It is pretty obvious you are just going to continue edit-warring so I will RFC this tomorrow and the community can make the decision. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You claimed that RT tracks only "British and American" reviews, which was absolutely false: RT is a global aggregator. Its 87% worldwide critical approval rating very much flies in the face of little ol' Sudhish's claim of "mixed reviews". Edit warring? At least I'm not "warring" against consensus. Locked from inside (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * . See WP:STATUSQUO: during a discussion on the talk page the extant version remains in place until a new consensus emerges. Do not edit war on this. You are at WP:3RR and if you revert again I will not hesitate to file for action in the appropriate forum. The page is here to discuss, so get on with it. So far all I see from you is that you don't like the source used. Fine: find something that says the opposite or dismisses the concept that the source raises. It's reliable, it's an understandable claim to make, and just because you are trying to base your opinion on the deeply misleading review aggregators you think you know better? You need to do better than that to persuade people. - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh hey, it's another person who doesn't like the film. One teeny weeny critic saying "mixed" vs. an aggregator that collects hundreds of reviews from around the world (yup, Betty Logan was wrong) saying extremely positive? Pick the one that best suits your agenda, then bend Wikipedia policies to bolster it, folks! Locked from inside (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "another person who doesn't like the film": actually I do like the film, but that's neither here nor there: 1. We reflect the sources, not big it up because we happen to like it; 2. Please don't try and personalise this: it's supposed to be about finding the right words to put inthe article, not attacking other editors. The "aggregators" are a red herring and I'd be happier if we got rid of the bloody things altogether. They take finally nuanced reviews from professional writers and crassly dumb them down to a percentage (how on earth can anyone accurately do that? What, for example, makes a review 55% against 58%?) If you cannot take the heat out of your overly-personal comments, then take a step back for a while before you respond. Finally, As I posted above and in the edit summary, please leave the text as it is until a new consensus is reached. See WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Deleting the 3RR warning I left on your page with "nope" seems you wish to ignore some of the policies and guidelines: I suggest you pay them a little more attention if you wish to have a stress-free Wiki-life. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hindustan Times: "The [Aurora shooting] incident might have sent a chill down the spine of movie-goers, but critics worldwide are still giving the epic conclusion a bow."
 * As for your 3RR warning, there was no need for it, as I didn't violate the policy ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts"). Locked from inside (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Giving a bow" doesn't give anyone enything to go on, certainly not enough to overturn a definite statement one way.
 * Of course there was a need for it: the 3RR warning is left when an edit warrior makes three reverts. The block comes on the fourth revert and you need to be warned before you take the final step. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, I knew it: your agenda is 100% confirmed. I find a source directly refuting the claim in The Hindu, as you requested, and you simply brush it aside. Also, nowhere in cites 183-185 do I see any mention of merely "British and American critics". Worldwide reception was positive, it's staring you right in the face, and you're sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" because you just don't like it. Locked from inside (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already asked you before not to personalise the argument: if you continue to do so, don't complain if others personalise it back against you. As to the source, it does not "directly refute" the statement in The Hindu at all. It it were down to me I'd say the reviews were mixed (there are enough sources that state that, and the "scores" from the obnoxious review aggregators also point in that direction. But it's not down to me: the sources say otherwise. Do you have a source that says the oppsite of the Hindu? (And no, "Giving a bow" isn't clear enough to justify anything). - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion is already personal as can be. I'm illuminating the already glaring worldwide reaction, while people who don't like the film quirm, bend policies, and cling desperately to a single critic's claim (which I just refuted with a broadsheet from the same country) to pretend reaction was mixed.
 * The Cambridge English dictionary defines a bow as "the movement of bending your head or body forward, especially as a way of showing someone respect" (not that I needed to tell you that). So we have the Hindustan Times indicating worldwide praise from critics; Yahoo, IB Times and NME noting positive reviews (not restricted to "British and American critics" as the article claims); and RT drawing an 87% from worldwide reviews. But hey, let's all go with the guy who said "mixed"! Locked from inside (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "The whole discussion is already personal as can be": no it's not, and there is no need to make it personal: we are discussing the wording of a reception section, so there is no need to personalise it - focus on the sources and the wording of the article without discussing the motives of others.
 * "people who don't like the film quirm, bend policies, and cling desperately to a single critic's claim" This is personalising it and there is no call for that. "Policies" are not being bent anywhere, and the discussion is supposed to be focussed on the balance of sources, not your disdain for the opinions of others.
 * "I just refuted with a broadsheet from the same country" No, you didn't. As I've already said, "Giving a bow" is not clear enough: it can be interpreted in several different ways, and does not in any way refute the source. It may raise a tiny question mark over the claim, but other sources are needed - with much more clarity in their message - to change the source.
 * "to pretend reaction was mixed" No-one is "pretending" anything. Again, try and be a more constructive in what you are saying: find some other sources that back up your claim, rather than try to double-guess what other people's opinions or approaches are.
 * "The Cambridge English dictionary": if you have to go to a dictionary to try and work out what you're trying to say, you're in trouble. I suggest you find another source, rather than flogging the dead horse of this one. – SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's eternal struggle of objective reporting vs. personal user agenda rears its ugly head once again, and someone batting for the former gets tired, once again. Enjoy your hoodwinking of the community; yourself and chum win, but the encyclopedia loses. Locked from inside (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite several warnings not to personalise this discussion, you have done so again. You have also reverted for the fourth (possibly fifth) time. Your approach is not conducive to a collegiate approach of article building, and your incessant edit warring has now led to a report filed in the appropriate forum. Hopefully you will have a chance to re-think your attitude during the course of a block. – SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the terminolgy, but a pet hate of mine is that while a change is being discussed the editor promoting said change insists on their "new" version being in situ while the change is discussed. At best this is ignorant, and at worst arrogant. If the change editor is correct in their claims, then their version will be accepted - all they have to do is abide by WP:BRD and they'll get their way. Constantly reverting runs the risk of (as has been pointed out) WP:3RR and blocks - which I'm sure you don't want, so just chill and talk. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to address several points raised above:
 * 1) I have never watched the film, so my opinion on the wording is not informed by my personal opinion.
 * 2) Review aggregators clearly states that "Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus; sections about critical reception should also benefit from other reliable sources".
 * 3) Review aggregators do not "represent" hundreds of reviews, they represent the sole opinion of the site who grades the reviews. That is why the exact same set of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can draw to different conclusions in some caeses.
 * 4) Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, as useful as they are, are British and American centric aggregators. They disproportionately represent English-language opinion. If they were not then there would be more Indian and Chinese reviews listed than English-langauge reviews, and this is obviously not the case. WP:WORLDVIEW encourages us to find opinion from beyond the sphere of English-speaking countries, and The Hindu clearly satisfies that requirement. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly positive reviews
On a tangential issue, I also find the lead-in sentence to be deeply non-neutral. It is attributed to three sources, but besides The Hindu (which discusses the international reception, The Week and International Business Times also describe the reviews in general terms as "mixed". It seems that the editors of this page are being very selective when it comes to describing the reception of this film. The Metacritic conclusion of "generally favorable" certainly does not back up the claim that the reviews are "overwhelmingly" positive. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are tons of sources to contradict the Week and IB Times articles you linked, including the IB Times piece already used as a source within the "reception" section! Agenda-driven reporters delving into the smattering of negative reviews to drive their point, when RT and MC point in a completely different direction, will hardly do. Still, I'm sure just "favourable reviews" would work fine. Locked from inside (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with cutting the hyperbole: "generally favorable" would work for me. - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , what's your opinion on the lead-in sentence? The wording of "While The Dark Knight Rises received early overwhelmingly positive reviews from British and American critics" should probably be put more neutrally I think. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, apart from my original comment of "I have no real opinion on the terminolgy", I would say that as-is the article doesn't support the term "overwhelmingly" - even in the positive review section there is negative comment; Ebert only giving the film 3 stars for example, and The Guardian calling it a "hammy, portentous affair" - but there is also without doubt more positive than negative, so I'd agree with the compromise of "generally favourable" - which falls into line with the Metacritic review, and is also the same status granted to (for example) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - another film which although had very favourable reviews also had a fair share of those who disagreed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving to a consensus
Everyone involved in this discussion seems to be of the opinion that the opening sentence does not accurately describe the reception, for one reason or another. Ultimately the opening sentence should ideally convey the flavor of the criticism that can be found in the section. The reviews tend to skew positive, but we can't discount the fact that Metacritic only regards them as "generally favorable", and while there are publications that describe them as "overwhelmingly positive" some describe them as mixed. The International Business Times does both: the American edition describes them as "overwhelmingly positive" while the the Indian edition describes them as mixed. It is pretty clear there isn't a consensus on how the film was received, but The Huffington Post probably gets closest in reflecting the aggregators and the reviews present in the article: "The final part of Nolan’s Dark Knight Batman trilogy has received mostly positive reviews, but a few critics gave it a negative write-up." On that note I propose replacing the current introductory sentence with the The Huffington summary. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The final part of Nolan’s Dark Knight Batman trilogy has received mostly positive reviews, but a few critics gave it a negative write-up."
 * The second part of that sentence is beyond superfluous, and including it gives total WP:UNDUE weight to a minority of critics. A ridiculous proposal from an obvious detractor of the film. Haters are the loudest here, though, so it will be included in no time. Locked from inside (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you stop with the personal comments against other editors; we can go down the block route again, if it'll help get the message across. – SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I have not seen the film I cannot be a detractor, and it could be a marvel comparable to Citizen Kane for all I know; I do wonder what your motivations are given your persistence to exclude any mitigating negative feedback about the film. Your antagonistic responses in this discussion lead me to the conclusion that perhaps a collaborative project like Wikipedia is probably not for you; it is necessary for people who have adopted different positions in a discussion to constructively work towards a consensus. The Huffington Post writer obviously did not feel it was "superfluous" to point out there were dissenters. Anyway, everything is open to negotiation so we can get a few third opinions and see where that gets us. If the general sentiment is that it is superfluous then we can drop it accordingly. As an aside, UNDUE does not prohibit giving coverage to minoirty opinions; in fact the purpose of the guideline is to ensure that minority points of view are covered, but not disproportionately. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "your persistence to exclude any mitigating negative feedback about the film"
 * Nice try. Nowhere on this page have I said anything to challenge the negative reviews included for balance. What I'm challenging is an agenda to make the film look like it garnered significantly less acclaim than it did, when the vast majority of coverage on the subject points in a very different direction. Your dedication to jamming terms like "negative" and "mixed" into the opening sentence of the reception section paints a picture of someone with an extreme dislike for the film. Locked from inside (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , following your block of Locked from inside from about 36 hours ago, we're struggling with another revert and an inability for a dispassionate approach that doesn't refer to other editors. To refer to the extant text as "vandalism", which it clearly isn't, is not AGF, nor is it a terribly constructive statement. – SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All that, yeah. And then there's the agenda-driven editing plaguing the article. Critical reaction to the film was oh so "negative" (a proposed and inevitable addition from Betty Logan) and "mixed", except, er, it wasn't. Locked from inside (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "agenda-driven editing", and I've asked you countless times to stop personalising the debate by double guessing the motives or approach of other editors. We have to provide a fair reflection of the sources, which is that while generally favourable, the film was criticised. That means mixed. (12% negative on Metacritic, 13% negative on RT. We cannot whitewash the reviews to be as overwhelmingly positive. – SchroCat (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that a film with an 87% RT rating garnered a "mixed" reception is highly irregular. You know this, as does everyone. And I was one of the folks who supported "overwhelmingly" being removed from the actual article, since I don't want a bias either way. Just fair reporting, which Wiki should be about. Locked from inside (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Metacritic describes the reviews only as "generally positive". Neither aggregator backs up the claim that the reviews are "overwhelmingly positive" so please stop pushing your non-neutral agenda. Rotten Tomatoes counts 87% of the reviews as positive, classifying 44 reviews as negative, so in what way exactly does the proposed Huffington Post summary "The final part of Nolan’s Dark Knight Batman trilogy has received mostly positive reviews, but a few critics gave it a negative write-up" contradict the aggregators? Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, did you even read the comment you just replied to? I don't want "overwhelmingly" in the article. Again, the second part of the Huffington sentence is superfluous, because saying that the film "received mostly positive reviews" makes it obvious that there were some detractors. Your dedication to sourcing every little bad thing said about this film's reception, and trying to smash it into the article, is very telling indeed. Locked from inside (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very telling: that you are dealing with experienced editors who have written several articles about films and know how to present sources properly. You, I see, are an inexperienced editor who has not worked on film articles to any great degree. Now, who do you think might have slightly better judgement on how to write this damned thing? Just to clarify: Betty Logan has never seen the film; I have a few times and thoroughly enjoyed it. There is no agenda to somehow 'downplay' the film, despite your wayward claims to the contrary. – SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenure means precious little if your MO is to rig articles in the hope of making readers subscribe to a critical reaction that happened in your alternate reality only. More unbiased newbies, please. Locked from inside (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be such an obnoxious influence here. You've been asked countless times not to personalise this, and yet you constantly have. Your approach is disruptive and unconstructive and we've now reached the point that your idiocy can now be safely ignored– SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unbiased reporting is idiocy, and widespread acclaim makes for a mixed reaction. You've crystallised why Wikipedia is perceived by the public as a wealth of misinformation. Locked from inside (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(Comment) Reviews that were not positive could have been neutral and not detracting. Although as you seem to have a problem recognising neutrality, it's understandable that you missed that possibility... Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(Note that User:Locked from inside was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:The abominable Wiki troll. Will leave it to a page regular to decide whether this discussion needs hatting.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2016
The category link "Categry:American crime thriller films" is misspelled. Fix it. 195.0.236.8 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Topher385 (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016
I suggest that in the intro you add that the Dark knight rises is considered of the best superhero films of the 2010's. the film is listed on Wikipedia's "list of films considered the best" page and the other two films in the trilogy stated that in their intros.

198.203.84.9 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not sure that this addition would really add the article in any significant way. Also, simply being on a Wikipedia list does not necessarily mean it is actually one of the best films. Topher385 (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016
The portion accusing Rush Limbaugh of implying that there was a leftist political subtext to the use of the name 'Bane' apropos Mitt Romney's involvement with Bain Capital is simply not accurate. (The source for this is an opinion piece) I am providing the link to the actual transcript from his show, from his website; it's very clear that he's NOT doing what has been suggested. (see http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign) Specifically he quotes the following: "Now, there's a story in the Washington Times Communities today:  "Amanda Read: Is Mitt Romney...Batman? -- Opponents of Mitt Romney have noticed that the name of Batman’s villain in the upcoming film The Dark Knight Rises is homonymous with the name of an investment firm that Romney founded in 1984. The childish 'aha' moment was not unpredictable. Americans have tolerated condescension remarkably well for the past four years, so we can presumably take an insult to our ability to spell -- or ability to follow a storyline, for that matter." - That's not Rush Limbaugh making the assertion; he quoted a source (Amanda Reed) that made the assertion.

69.170.101.171 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Plot mismatch?
Seems to me like the plot section here is for a more recent Batman movie, not the one this article is supposed to be about. 1bandsaw (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing this, this dicknozzle is using edit summaries that make you overlook the edits as if he undid vandalism. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017
Sanjeev11190 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Hi Myself Dinesh Kumar from gurgaon and i want to say that this is a good movie
 * Not exactly the purpose of this template, Sanjeev11190. I suggest you take a look at WP:TPG.  Tide  rolls  17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request on April 29, 2017
In "Plot", "for covering up Dents crimes" should be "for covering up Dent's crimes"

Themichaelcaruso (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on The Dark Knight Rises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109150657/http://www.flicksandbits.com/2012/07/25/hans-zimmer-speaks-on-the-deshi-basara-chant-in-the-dark-knight-rises/28983/ to http://www.flicksandbits.com/2012/07/25/hans-zimmer-speaks-on-the-deshi-basara-chant-in-the-dark-knight-rises/28983/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CjbkD9Hg?url=http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta13.php to http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta13.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518004840/http://www.nick.com/kids-choice-awards/2013/nominees/ to http://www.nick.com/kids-choice-awards/2013/nominees/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225153211/http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/paralleluniverse-blogpost.aspx?post=4952c6d6-1266-4377-9ae6-ff6a00a5b59e to http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/paralleluniverse-blogpost.aspx?post=4952c6d6-1266-4377-9ae6-ff6a00a5b59e
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6FaZ1wnUQ?url=http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms34.html to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms34.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xLwpPIh8?url=http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39348 to http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39348
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101213427/http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/185737/20110723/the-dark-knight-rises-judge-a-new-cast-bane-speaks-plus-la-casting-call.htm to http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/185737/20110723/the-dark-knight-rises-judge-a-new-cast-bane-speaks-plus-la-casting-call.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38201
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xLwx0v1Q?url=http://www.deadline.com/2010/02/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-chris-nolan-hell-mentor-superman-3-0-while-preparing-3rd-batman/ to http://www.deadline.com/2010/02/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-chris-nolan-hell-mentor-superman-3-0-while-preparing-3rd-batman/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Baneposting
This movie has had an enormous, lasting cultural influence on the internet culture, shouldn't it at least be mentioned? 2001:630:E4:4220:2831:57BB:24F0:DB59 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can cite a reliable source, then yes. DonQuixote (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot covers it here. No idea if this is reliable enough

Creator Credit in Infobox
I've been going through the Batman film pages and adding Bill Finger's contribution to the "based on" credits. To keep with some consistency I'm going to add those credits to the infobox here. Other pages for films based on characters have this type of credit in their infobox, so I think it works in this case (see: Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) or Wonder Woman (2017 film)) Friendly Lobotomy (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus: Should the opening scene (which is famously referenced in the Baneposting meme) be mentioned in the "Plot" section?
The "Plot" section describes the main plot of the movie, including many major scenes. However, I've noticed that it makes no mention of the opening scene. Should we add a summary of the events that transpire during the opening scene to the "Plot" section? Zakawer (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary. The "Plot" section states midway, "He kills Mayor Anthony Garcia and forces Dr. Leonid Pavel, a Russian nuclear physicist he kidnapped from Uzbekistan, to convert the reactor core into an atomic bomb before killing him as well." The opening scene is good drama, but the key detail from it for summarizing the plot is already nicely embedded. If the scene is discussed by reliable sources elsewhere in the article body, then it can be briefly described for context. (E.g., "For the first six minutes in which Bane kidnaps a nuclear physicist mid-air, IMAX cameras were used...") The overall summary should simply explain the overall story that takes place in the film so readers can understand in general what the of the article will discuss. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Spelling error
There is a spelling error on the first line of the Reception section: "The we site's critical consensus reads" should be "The web site's critical consensus reads"
 * thanks. sorted now IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible correction for a critic's quote in the Reception section
One of the starting quotes is "The Daily Telegraph granted the film a maximum score of five stars, stating that it is "a superhero film without a superhero," comparing it with The Godfather Part II and praising Hardy's performance as well as the film's intricate plot and narrative." I looked at the link a while back and the author Robbie Collin, in his first paragraph was likening how The Dark Knight impressed people on the level of Michael Mann's Heat or The Godfather Part II did. So maybe the mention of comparing it with The Godfather Part II should be removed? (2605:6000:20C2:1F00:91B0:75A3:19DD:B118 (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:20C2:1F00:91B0:75A3:19DD:B118 (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with citation of articles
I just created an account with Wikipedia here, and I wanted to add some best of lists that this film was featured on, as well as help possibly correct something in the Reception section. As for the former, I got most of my lists cited except for two. I successfully added citations for 260 and 262. I'm having trouble with 258 and 263, since I was citing them similar to the way I formatted the two others. They're for the film being listed on a best superhero movies poll in the U.K. by Virgin Media in 2018, and film critic Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph who listed it on his 100 greatest films of all time list that same year. Like for 263, it comes out as- {{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-movies-all-time-100-greatest-films/%7Ctitle=The 100 greatest movies of all time|website=The Telegraph |language=en|access-date=October 7, 2020]]. I'm trying to format it like a normal link; like I have for 262 with "The 25 best superhero movies, ranked by Robbie Collin". The Telegraph. Retrieved October 6, 2020. Thanks. (H.AFI.17 (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)).

Influential
Are these 3 sources  Valid enough for the claim that rises is one of the influential films of the decade alongside begins and night? I ask before I edit to make sure I don’t vandalize. Would love any input — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)